Sequestration, the election hangover

Former President Bill Clinton cited the U.S. defense budget as a campaign issue at the Democratic National Convention. He noted that Republicans “want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested, without saying what they’ll spend it on.” President Barack Obama is now running TV ads in battleground states, saying that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wants to increase military spending.

Beyond these numbers, the key difference between the defense plans of Obama and Romney is their priorities.

Story Continued Below

Obama emphasizes a shrinking military — relying on high-tech investments, “small footprint” solutions and a pivot to the Asia-Pacific at the expense of other regions. Pentagon highlights from his almost four years in office include a focus on canceling weapons systems, efficiencies, green and alternative energy, climate change, withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and expanding the civilian bureaucracy but shrinking the Army and Marine Corps.

If Obama wins a second term, we can expect these priorities to continue — including further reducing the defense budget and the number of troops in Afghanistan. The president also is likely to build off the New START Treaty and aggressively pursue greater reductions in our strategic arsenal, including tactical nuclear weapons. Projects like the Navy’s “great green fleet,” more energy-independent bases and environmental security cooperation with foreign militaries would surely continue. A base closure round would eventually move forward.

Obama may also re-examine America’s “war on drugs” and the military’s role in counter-drug missions abroad and at home,Marc Ambinder reported in July for GQ. This could include less military aid for countries like Mexico and more civilian money, a change in emphasis for U.S. Southern Command, as well as reduced helicopter fleets and efforts to eradicate marijuana at home.

Romney has said he will focus on rebuilding U.S. military strength if elected. He insists U.S. leadership requires a resurrection of President Ronald Reagan’s vision of “peace through strength.” Investing in hard power capabilities is not about a penchant for using them in war. Rather, the priority will be to secure national policy objectives without fighting.

Under Romney, the military would most likely invest and use power projection capabilities to favorably shape and influence friends, allies and foes, while successfully empowering diplomatic and other “whole of government” efforts. For this to work, U.S. power has to be credible, which means that the scale and scope of our military capabilities must be able to engage effectively and decisively.

Eliot Cohen writes in Romney’s foreign policy white paper, “the easiest way, for example, to become embroiled in a clash with China over Taiwan, or because of China’s ambitions in the South or East China Seas, will be to leave Beijing in doubt about the lack of depth of our commitment to long-standing allies in the region.” U.S. military power should match the commitments that America’s military is expected to keep. The ability to robustly defend our interests, along with regional allies, is based on having certain military capabilities, superior training and education and a professional fighting force.